Intentionalism Vs Functionalism

Most interpretations of the origins of the last answer fall into either the so-called intentionalist or the functionalist school of thought 'Intentionalism' mentions to the position of those historians who argue that the self-conscious conclusions made by Hitler and his immediate followers were resolute to the nationwide Socialist rule(Hilberg 41) In their outlook, an indisputable continuity lives between Hitler's anti-Semitic writings in Mein Kampf, and the Nazi racial policies that were chased by Germany both before and throughout the War This intentionalist explanation was broadly accepted in the direct years after the Second World War although, farther study and analyses of the persecution and killing of the European Jews led historians in the 1970's to find out that a “broad spectrum of military agents, municipal servants and technocrats, as well as representatives of large-scale commerce eagerly served a scheme that was characterized by a cumulative inhumanity and barbaric violence” These disturbing discoveries initiated some historians to re-interpret the last Solution in what has come to be called a 'functionalist' model. (Browning 12)

'Functionalism' is the position of those historians who admonish the intentionalists for ascribing the prime “burden of interpretation” to the will of Hitler and other prominent Nazi leaders From their perspective, a more convoluted understanding of the Third Reich entails the concern of “collective processes”, that is, the dynamic interaction between the distinct governmental organizations and its consequences on the decision-making methods in the Nazi regime It should be noted that the functionalists are ascribing the sources of the Final Solution to an abstract entity (governmental structure)(Mommsen 41) if or not they are correct, their methodology makes it tough to accredit accuse by a victim/perpetrator dichotomy One could, of course, consider the governmental structure to be the perpetrator, although, such a perpetrator departs both the public, and the historians themselves, little outlet for lesson outrage This displacement of the blame for the Final answer has commanded intentionalists to accuse functionalists of trivializing and/or relativizing the function of Hitler and his immediate followers therefore, since the late 1970's and the early 1980's and hard-hitting and warmed debate has raged between the proponents of the functionalist and the intentionalist schools of thought.    

The reason of this term paper is to critically assess the confrontation between the intentionalist and the functionalist advances in their investigation of the sources of the Final Solution I have selected to examine two positions that have appeared as representative of the two schools of thought: That of LucyS. Dawidowicz, the ultra-intentionalist; and that of Hans Mommsen, a representative functionalist.  Additionally, I examine a third position, that of Christian Browning, who attempts to synthesize the two schools.  (Mason 12)

Lucy Dawidowicz, the 'arch-intentionalist', contends in her publication, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, that it is grossly incorrect (even shameful) to refute that all of the racial principles of the Third Reich drop directly in line with Hitler's will The annihilation of the Jewish people was incorporated in his quest for Lebensraum ('living-space') and the supremacy of the ...